[0.25] Realism Overhaul w/ RedAV8R [Terminated]

Recommended Posts

how do I find out how high a stage should get, before burn out?

Um...that's a math problem. Kerbal Engineer or MechJeb both has windows that'll show burn time, but height is dependant upon payload and can vary.

Share on other sites
Well that'll more or less come when I run through RealEngines itself and redo/fix what I can, (XX.Xm) at the end of each engine isn't a bad idea. The sorting I can't help you out with, though I wish there was a good way. That's a property of how they are named and the organization of the mod itself in their folders, which I can't legally, and won't do. The node resizing is important and that will be verified for sure.

What is node resizing?

EDIT: Are you talking about the last number in a node defintion? 0 for half meter, 1 for normal, and 2 for large?

If so i'm not sure how useful that is? I was rescaling something to a half meter size, and set that to 0 and the attach point became so small you couldn't even see it. So I set it to 1 instead. On the flip side of things, almost every engine in RO is over 1m so wouldn't like 90% of the nodes be sized 2?

I can put them into the names though if we want to go that direction, because that is what i'm in the middle of is compiling a list of engine sizes. It is a good idea actually.

Edited by Agathorn

Share on other sites

It is a good idea because 0.23.5 uses nodes to determine joint strength, at least that's how I understand it. Also there are mods like PartCatalog which can sort parts by node size which is incredibly useful because you can put an appropriate fuel tank, sort the tanks by that diameter and then just pick a fitting engine rather than taking them one by one going through loops of various sizes.

Share on other sites

So do you just round down on sizes? I mean almost nothing is an even size in KSP. there are no 1m parts. They are mostly 1.25m for example. Or 2.5m. Dow you just round down for the node size?

EDIT: Actually I guess it would be better to round up on engines. That way a 3.5m engine would be 4, and would fit better on a 4m engine than a 3m engine (which would leave bits of the engine sticking out).

I'll make sure to update sizes as I am going through things if I see a problem.

Edited by Agathorn

Share on other sites

Ok so i'm noting the engine size in brackets after the name, IE: "LR-91 [3.0m]" or "LR-87 (two) [3.0m]". I'm also verifying node sizes as I go. I only had to make a couple fixes there. both AIES and KW Engines are done on my side.

Share on other sites
What is node resizing?

EDIT: Are you talking about the last number in a node defintion? 0 for half meter, 1 for normal, and 2 for large?

If so i'm not sure how useful that is? I was rescaling something to a half meter size, and set that to 0 and the attach point became so small you couldn't even see it. So I set it to 1 instead. On the flip side of things, almost every engine in RO is over 1m so wouldn't like 90% of the nodes be sized 2?

I can put them into the names though if we want to go that direction, because that is what i'm in the middle of is compiling a list of engine sizes. It is a good idea actually.

It is a good idea because 0.23.5 uses nodes to determine joint strength, at least that's how I understand it. Also there are mods like PartCatalog which can sort parts by node size which is incredibly useful because you can put an appropriate fuel tank, sort the tanks by that diameter and then just pick a fitting engine rather than taking them one by one going through loops of various sizes.
So do you just round down on sizes? I mean almost nothing is an even size in KSP. there are no 1m parts. They are mostly 1.25m for example. Or 2.5m. Dow you just round down for the node size?

EDIT: Actually I guess it would be better to round up on engines. That way a 3.5m engine would be 4, and would fit better on a 4m engine than a 3m engine (which would leave bits of the engine sticking out).

I'll make sure to update sizes as I am going through things if I see a problem.

Ok so i'm noting the engine size in brackets after the name, IE: "LR-91 [3.0m]" or "LR-87 (two) [3.0m]". I'm also verifying node sizes as I go. I only had to make a couple fixes there. both AIES and KW Engines are done on my side.

The sizes in brackets sounds great. Node sizes have been just that, I have been using the absolute value of the size to determine node size. Ex. 3.0-3.9~=3, 4.0-4.9~=4 and so on. So 0-0.99~=0. Hasn't failed me yet.

Share on other sites
The sizes in brackets sounds great. Node sizes have been just that, I have been using the absolute value of the size to determine node size. Ex. 3.0-3.9~=3, 4.0-4.9~=4 and so on. So 0-0.99~=0. Hasn't failed me yet.

Well actually i'd say that is backwards. The problem, IMHO, with doing it that way is that you end up with engines too big for a tank. If you have a 3.9m engine defined as a Node 3 size, and put it on a 3m tank, its going to stick out and look silly. On the flip side if you define it as Node size 4 and put it on a size 4 tank, it will be slightly smaller than the tank and look fine.

Share on other sites

Seems like a pretty simple answer, don't put a 3.9m engine on a 3m tank.

Share on other sites
Seems like a pretty simple answer, don't put a 3.9m engine on a 3m tank.

Well of course not. But isn't the entire point of setting the node sizes, so that you see the compatible tanks? Split the middle, a 3.5m engine. If it has a node size of 3, I see all tanks that are too small. If I have the node size at 4, I see all tanks that are big enough.

Share on other sites
Well of course not. But isn't the entire point of setting the node sizes, so that you see the compatible tanks? Split the middle, a 3.5m engine. If it has a node size of 3, I see all tanks that are too small. If I have the node size at 4, I see all tanks that are big enough.

No it's not. That's just a 'feature' of PartCatalog, that while I will do some things to help people out, this i'm not changing. The node sizes help determine joint strength in KSP and also plays a part in FAR (or at least did), So I don't want a 3.5m engine given a 4 node size which increases the drag in FAR to that of a 4m object. The same being true, I'm not giving a 3.5m object the same strength as a 4.4m object.

Share on other sites

Ah ok. I thought all it did in stock KSP was adjust the visual size of the points so they matched the model. But if it affects physics then that is something else.

Well with the size in the name of the engine, everything should be good.

Share on other sites

1. On scaling

Three things affect scale.

A (MODEL node not used; instead "mesh = blah" used)

1. "scale = foo" determines how the first three numbers for each attach node line (the X, Y, Z coords of the node) are scaled. It does *not* affect anything else. Default = 1.0 if not present

2. "rescaleFactor = bar" scales both the model (and its transforms) *and* the attach nodes. Default = 1.25 if not present.

B (MODEL node(s) used)

1. Inside the MODEL node, "scale = blahX, blahY, blahZ" determines the scaling of the model and its transforms. Default is 1.0, 1.0, 1.0. It does not affect node positions.

2. Outside the MODEL node, "scale = foo" works as above.

3. Outside the MODEL node, rescaleFactor works as above.

HOWEVER, there is a bug in scaling. For parts with MODEL nodes, rescaleFactor is applied twice to the mu, *unless* (a) the part is the root part of the vessel and ( you've reverted to launch (or perhaps switched in flight? Don't recall). All other times, it is applied twice. What this means is that if you have scale = 1.0, 1.0, 1.0 in the MODEL node (or no scale at all), and rescaleFactor = 1.25, then your mesh will actually be 1.5625 as big, but your nodes will be scaled outwards 1.25.

For this reason, when scaling parts using MODEL nodes, it is suggested to leave scale (outside the MODEL node) and rescaleFactor both at 1.0, and instead both change the scale = x, y, z inside the MODEL node and manually scale the positions of the attach nodes.

2. On diameters. Engine diameter is kinda meaningless except for those engines that have a tank butt attached to them. (Those big flat or dome-like things at the top of engines? Ain't engines. They're the bottoms of the tanks. Stupid modders following a stupid KSP convention of adding tank butts to engines.)

Node size, however, is important. The 7th number in a node_foo = x, y, z, vx, vy, vz, SIZE define (add it if not there) is the node size. In RO, 0 means 0.5m, 1 = 1m, and up from there. Set it to the approximate diameter of the part, so if the engine is approximately 3m in diameter, use 3.

Rounding normally should be fine. I wouldn't round >4.5 down to 4 though (and the like, i.e. flooring), since that will make connections weaker than they should be, and make FAR not handle open nodes correctly. Although as RedAV8R's contrary position points out ( ) it's kind of arbitrary where you do the rounding, since FAR's gonna be wrong some of the time no matter how you slice it.

Node size, however, has absolutely nothing to do with where a part is positioned or the part's size; it's merely a number KSP uses to (a) draw the green node bubble and ( determine joint strength.

Share on other sites

Um.. nearly every single engine in the configs I Was doing this morning (KW and AIES) all have scaling in both the MODEL{} node and in rescaleFactor. Are you saying that is bad and I should rework them all to use a 1.0 rescaleFactor? Presumably by modifying the MODEL{} scale and attach points to compensate?

Share on other sites
Um.. nearly every single engine in the configs I Was doing this morning (KW and AIES) all have scaling in both the MODEL{} node and in rescaleFactor. Are you saying that is bad and I should rework them all to use a 1.0 rescaleFactor? Presumably by modifying the MODEL{} scale and attach points to compensate?

That is correct.

Share on other sites

Can anyone on 6.0alpha1 let me know if you see these NovaPunch2 RealEngines showing up:

NP_lfe_125m_K2XEngine J-2

NP_lfe_375m_LittleMother NK-33 (nine)

NP_lfe_5m_TheMatriarch NK-33 (nineteen)

These three engines aren't showing up properly for me and i'll be darned if I can figure out why. Looking to see if anyone else is having the same issue or if its something to do with my own setup.

That is correct.

Ok will do.

Share on other sites

Maybe relatied to the issue Agathorn seems to be haveing but I am have RCS blocks showing up in the tech tree nodes, but not the VAB. Not sure if its an issue with RO or RPL

Share on other sites
Maybe relatied to the issue Agathorn seems to be haveing but I am have RCS blocks showing up in the tech tree nodes, but not the VAB. Not sure if its an issue with RO or RPL

Check in sandbox mode.

Share on other sites

They got deprecated, but since AFAIK tweakscale doesn't play nice with them (since they (a) use ModuleRCSFX and ( have RF engine configs) they shouldn't be IMO.

Share on other sites
They got deprecated, but since AFAIK tweakscale doesn't play nice with them (since they (a) use ModuleRCSFX and ( have RF engine configs) they shouldn't be IMO.

Are you referring to tmikesecrist3's issue with RCS, or my missing NP engines?

Share on other sites
They got deprecated, but since AFAIK tweakscale doesn't play nice with them (since they (a) use ModuleRCSFX and ( have RF engine configs) they shouldn't be IMO.

Yeah, not sure what happened...Thought I had them elsewhere, smaller RCS blocks are back.

Share on other sites
Are you referring to tmikesecrist3's issue with RCS, or my missing NP engines?

Missing NP engines are due to changes in the actual filename of the model, basically the age of the original RealEngines is starting to show. I've repaired that, the RCS, and a few other issues and I'll issue Alpha2 shortly.

Edited by RedAV8R

Share on other sites
Missing NP engines are due to latest update I imagine which changed the model filename. I've repaired that, the RCS, and a few other issues and I'll issue Alpha2 shortly.

DOH! I didn't even think to look at the original NP Pack to see if that had changed. Very bad of me. But I guess that's how we learn.

Share on other sites

thats the think it looks like its there in sand box. but into in currer after I unlock the nod.. odd most odd

Share on other sites

Not odd if you actually read the posts above yours.